Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker)

Foothills (talker)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the sources verify the subject but are not independent so notability is not established. Poking around on Google I have only found the following: a paragraph long mention at a wiki-like thing run by the BBC and a possible passing mention in this book. Nothing to get excited about, unfortunately. Reyk _YO! 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talkers are pre-web, and some sites referenced have 404'd. Further research beyond the web (and in books beyond those Google Books searches) would be helpful. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching the Internet Archive might pull those 404s if you know the webaddress(es). -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to talkers article but this does seem to be a notable subject just needing clean-up and the right editor{s} to dig up where the history of talkers (whatever they are called universally or individually). This is true with the other noms in the subject area. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without any doubt whatsoever. Foothills is an intrinsic part of early internet culture. It predates the popularity of the web and is a direct predecessor of modern social networks, instant messaging, and MMORPGs. Not to mention that it's still running after nearly two decades. I've completely rewritten the article to improve accuracy and support this case with many verifiability and notability references both in independent media and many books. Fox (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]